How can you balance synthesis and your own voice in a literature review?

[Eric.M]

I’ve been working on my dissertation’s literature review for months, and I keep hitting this weird wall where I’m not sure if I’m synthesizing sources properly or just stitching together a patchwork of other people’s arguments. It feels like my own voice gets completely lost in the process. Has anyone else struggled with finding that balance between summarizing the field and actually building your own scholarly position?

[Noah.J]

That wall you describe is common for anyone trying to keep their own voice in a literature review I have felt the same pressure and the word synthesis keeps returning to my notes as a test of whether I am truly adding something new rather than just repeating others

[MiaUD]

From a practical angle you can shift toward a synthesis by mapping what each source argues and then spotting where their lines meet or clash and then make your own stance clear at the point where you diverge

[Larry_G]

Maybe the framing is the trap not the act of writing you are doing if the goal is to synthesize every last source you may lose your thread what if the aim is to critique a method or theory rather than fuse every argument

[LilyCW]

Consider the review as a map not a verdict the voice you want to hear could be the one asking what the field is still uncertain about and your stance becomes the next question not a closing statement

[Ava_P]

Try a small exercise a draft that shows your claim and then a paragraph that shows how one source supports or contradicts it and you can see where the synthesis lands before you train the rest of the chapter

[Jerry70]

Would letting a rough draft breathe for a week and then returning with a clearer claim help you feel the voice return